[gjsman-1000]

> As you can see, I feel that Open Source is a much better model that better protects users, contributors, and community members of software.

Assuming that said vendor was even going to open-source in the first place. I would take Windows, Affinity, macOS, Adobe, literally any major software project under the FSL any day. Realistically, the companies that FSL appeals to, were never going to consider open-sourcing to begin with.

[ensignavenger]

If the vendor doesn't go open source, I will look for an open source alternative. If none is available, I will consider building one. Only after researching those options would I consider a propeietary or "Fair" source product. And I would be very careful with how I integrate such a product into my business.

So yeah, if there are no good open source alternatives and building my own would be cost prohibitive, I might consider a Fair Source product.

[solidsnack9000]

This approach is not available to most people most of the time, so it's not going to make a difference.

[talldayo]

It's available to everyone, all of the time. Anyone can do it, which is why you actually see forking and custom tooling quite frequently in businesses at-scale.

It's absolutely bewildering that someone would say "it's not going to make a difference" when half of the market for B2B software is literally predicated on the existence of more permissive tooling. Licensing is practically the only thing that matters besides security and functionality when evaluating software.

[ensignavenger]

I'm not sure what you mean by this? I would guess from my own experience that there are open source alternatives to the majority of software. Often the open source software is just as good or better.